This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

Voters

97. You may not vote on this poll

Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

2828.87%

No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

I think our government is vastly bloated. I'd like to see lower taxes if we can see lower government. That being said I don't think the economy will collapse because of the relatively small tax increases provided for by this deal. I'm not crying about the tax aspect or upset about it, in fact I'm glad the tax cuts are permanent on the bottom 99%. If it means the top 1% pays slightly more to avoid another tax increase cliff then c'est la vie. What I am upset about is that you see NO substantial spending cuts. Obama claims he is "open" and a compromiser. For all the ridiculousness of some of the Tea Partiers who refuse to play the game one iota Obama is a jackass. He made himself look reasonable all while refusing to cut spending. Now he's saying he is just going to raise the debt limit by fiat to avoid cutting spending. I was never a hardline Obama hater, I just kind of accepted he's a typical politician hack, but he has reached a new low with this deal.

Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

It's unreasonable. I support a flat tax. It eliminates the need for the IRS since taxes can be collected and processed by smaller agencies on a state level, and it simplifies the tax code.

**** it. just get rid of the IRS (think of the money that would save) and institute a national sales tax. have an exemption for food, so the poor don't starve (but you don't pay sales tax anyway when you use food stamps do you?)

the more you spend, the more tax you pay. and since the evil rich bastards spend more money than the poor they pay more taxes....everybody wins

Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

That change, many contend, would allow taxpayers to file their returns on postcards. And surveys suggest positive voter responses to several of the most recent proposals.

Yet none will be adopted, for at least two reasons. One is that a flat tax would do nothing to make filing tax returns any simpler. But, more important, it would greatly exacerbate longstanding growth in income inequality.

(snip)

The much more serious concern is that a flat tax would reinforce the trends toward greater income inequality that have been seen over the last several decades. As documented by a recent Congressional Budget Office study, the top 1 percent of income recipients in the United States earned 275 percent more in 2007 than they did in 1979, adjusted for inflation, a period when the earnings of middle-income households grew by less than 40 percent. A flat tax would increase inequality by substantially reducing rates on the most prosperous households, while increasing them on low- and middle-income households.

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Cain’s proposal would increase the annual tax bill of a typical family of four earning $50,000 a year by more than $4,000, but would reduce the taxes owed by a similar family earning between $500,000 and $1 million by almost $60,000. The center also estimated that families in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households would enjoy an average annual tax reduction of nearly $1.4 million under the Cain plan. Similar distributional effects are common under all flat-tax plans, not just Mr. Cain’s.

Rising inequality exacts a toll not just on those with lower incomes, but also on those much higher up the income scale. In their 2009 book, “The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger,” the British public health researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett document a range of social ills that are reliably associated with increased income inequality, both over time within nations and at any particular moment across a broad range of countries. Countries and times with lower inequality fare better on virtually every published index of health, well-being and quality of life.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Originally Posted by OscarB63

**** it. just get rid of the IRS (think of the money that would save) and institute a national sales tax. have an exemption for food, so the poor don't starve (but you don't pay sales tax anyway when you use food stamps do you?)

the more you spend, the more tax you pay. and since the evil rich bastards spend more money than the poor they pay more taxes....everybody wins

I think you're speaking of the fair tax:

We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

and congress loves pandering to the many. that is what the progressive tax does

Kind of a poor effort to avoid what's being argued.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.